To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws.

It’s time for the State to enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.

Rocky Hill CT, March 3, 2014:

A recent media tidal wave based on false reports and bad journalism has proven a few things about the 2013 Gun Ban: people from Connecticut and around the nation are tired of being threatened; are ready to make a stand; and the State of Connecticut does not have the stomach to enforce the edicts and laws with which they threaten gun owners.

For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.

Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of "amnesty" and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.

It comes as no surprise that the talks of relaxing enforcement expectations go along with legislators trying to get past their re-election deadlines. If the anti-gun laws they passed are so good for everyone in this state, then why are elected officials requesting increased security, both at the LOB and at their private homes? The anti-gun legislators and officials are scared to implement their tyranny because they know that they did not have any sort of ‘consent of the governed’. Those officials violated their oaths of office, as the Executive and Legislative branches of our Connecticut government overstepped their moral and constitutional responsibilities by passing those laws: they acted and voted contrary to our Rights and against our Constitution.

Now, State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probable that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly. Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it's time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of "the jack boot" coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” - Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

If officials of the State of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the State’s violence.

“As citizens of Connecticut, we have a right to bear arms. With that right comes responsibility. The responsibility to stand in defense of ourselves and our fellow citizens is paramount.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

Gun owners all over California, and throughout the nation, are rejoicing over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the previous rulings in Peruta v San Diego in favor of the right to bear arms. Peruta v San Diego is a landmark case that follows and expands upon the 2008 DC v Heller decision.

In Heller, SCOTUS (the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that owning a firearm is a fundamental and individual right. Later, in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the court affirmed that this right applied to all citizens of all states, under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Peruta v San Diego makes clear that this right also applies outside the home, contrary to what many anti-rights activists have opined.

The Peruta decision makes clear that states and municipalities cannot deny their citizens the right to bear arms any more than they can deny their citizens the right to possess arms. In San Diego, citizens were denied their right to bear arms through the ‘good cause’ requirement of their concealed carry licenses. The ‘good cause’ requirement is an arbitrary and capricious requirement that gave local governments, in practice, the ability to deny the right to bear arms to all citizens except those that were politically connected or financially influential.

The man behind the San Diego case, Mr. Edward Peruta, is Connecticut Carry's own Director Edward Peruta. Mr. Peruta has been a longtime advocate against government corruption, and a supporter of equal rights, particularly in the field of gun rights. Connecticut Carry (a 501(c)(4) non-profit devoted to defending and promoting the right to bear arms) was formed in large part around Ed’s advocacy and wise guidance in the area of firearms laws. Now, the 9th Circuit has handed down a landmark decision upholding the right to bear arms in Mr. Peruta’s case, creating an affirmation that Mr. Peruta’s fight has never been in vain.

As Mr. Peruta pointed out, the California case and his efforts here in Connecticut are closely related:

“It was my prior knowledge of firearms laws and issues that got me to file suit in California. My experience with Attorney Rachel M. Baird prepared me to take action against San Diego in 2009. The rest is history.” – Edward Peruta

Connecticut Carry is fortunate and proud to have such a visionary and influential individual on our leadership team.

In, yet, another flimsy case, brought and prosecuted by the State of Connecticut, the State is, once again, refusing to drop charges against a Connecticut citizen because of the fact that he owns firearms.

Mr. Morgan, a long time collector of firearms, owns quite an extensive collection of firearms, including machine guns. The charges against Mr. Morgan were based on allegations of a physical altercation that had nothing to do with firearms. The entire incident was apparently so negligible that the accusers took 15 hours to report the incident to police. Despite these facts, the judge and prosecutor have made Morgan's firearms a central aspect of the case. The state clearly aims to make sure that Mr. Morgan loses his firearms no matter whether he beats the charges or not.

The allegations and charges against Mr. Morgan are flimsy enough, but when compounded by the fact that the trooper who arrested him has since resigned under allegations that he falsified "hundreds" of reports or criminal complaints, this case takes on a whole new light. Upon a review of former Trooper Bergeron’s reports and statements in this case, it was found that the witness statements were written by Bergeron in his own handwriting. At least one page of the statement was not even signed by the witness, lending itself to further question speculation as to whether this was in fact the witness’s statement or Bergeron’s.

The allegedly disgraceful official behavior of former Trooper Bergeron was, in fact, so serious that when it was discussed with Mr. Morgan’s legal counsel, in a court hallway, a nolle of Mr. Morgan's charges was proposed by the State’s Attorney. Instead of the judge allowing or accepting the nolle, the judge insisted on prosecuting Mr. Morgan simply because Mr. Morgan owns firearms. The judge insisted that Mr. Morgan plead, and the judge refused to accept the State's Attorney's nolle offering.

“The state has made it clear that they will engage in whatever dirty tricks and disgusting behavior necessary to wage a war against the citizens of Connecticut who wish to exercise their right to bear arms.” -- Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

Toni Harp, incoming New Haven mayor, former Connecticut Senator, was reported to request a full-time security detail consisting of two well-armed New Haven police officers that will be driving the new mayor around. The hypocrisy in Senator Harp’s request for the security detail was not lost on Connecticut Carry President Richard Burgess:

“Toni Harp voted to take away, restrict and ban many effective self-defense tools from good, hard-working Connecticut citizens. That she now wishes to be surrounded at all times by two officers that are exempt from those laws says a lot about how she relates to her constituency and how she values herself compared to our families.”

Citizens of Connecticut have been restricted from buying effective self-defense tools including modern sporting rifles and regular capacity magazines ever since SB 1160 passed, a bill that Toni Harp was not shy about supporting. These tools are the same tools that the security detail around her will carry on a regular basis to defend her from the rampant crime that this law will continue to fuel in New Haven. A luxury that even those in Connecticut who can afford private security are not even allowed due to the new laws.

While Toni Harp is protected by two well-armed officers that could be protecting citizens, the citizens in Connecticut who have a pistol permit (1 out of 10 eligible citizens) will have to defend themselves and their families with limited capacity magazines and inferior tools. Indeed, studies show that tools like this are used in defensive roles around 2.5 million times a year nationally. Such tools are desired to defend against the frequent, and emboldened, mob attacks that occur in New Haven that have worsened since the ban.

Why does Toni Harp feel it necessary to have these tools around her for protection when she has spent her time denying those tools to the rest of the citizens of Connecticut? Are our families and loved ones’ lives worth less than Toni Harp’s?

President Burgess concluded:

“Clearly Toni Harp shares our belief that these tools are effective defensive tools. The difference is that she apparently believes that she is part of an elite class of people who are entitled to be defended by these tools while the rest of us are supposed to follow the law she voted for.”

People will soon be harmed by the State’s rushed and flawed laws and interpretations

Middletown CT, December 26, 2013:

In the final days left for Connecticut residents to interpret the laws and to make decisions on whether or not to register their firearms as possible ‘Assault Weapons’, Connecticut gun owners are left with conflicting interpretations from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).

The Department of Emergency Services has been tasked with the sole authority to make declaratory rulings and legal interpretations about the statutes within their enforcement domain in the State of Connecticut since a 2009 court case affirmed that duty. On October 11, 2013, DESPP Commissioner Reuben Bradford sent a letter to an Attorney Clough out of Southbury stating in no uncertain terms:

Section 11 of Public Act 13-220 was intended to resolve an ambiguity in Public Act 13-3. The section clarifies that it is the intent of the legislature to exclude assault weapons manufactured before September 13, 1994 from transfer restrictions and registration requirements.

Connecticut Carry, exercising due diligence, also posted and referred people to a conflicting written opinion from our counsel, Attorney Rachel M. Baird of Torrington, Connecticut. Attorney Baird concluded that those ‘Assault Weapons’ that were manufactured before September 13, 1994 were excluded from the ban, unless they were named in the named part of the ban.

Now, with less than 6 days left until the looming registration deadline of January 1st, 2014, the word from certain gun dealers is that certain members of DESPP have privately made statements that DESPP plans to reverse the widely public interpretation by Commissioner Bradford, and now those same sources say DESPP is reversing that reversal.

Connecticut Carry makes education about laws a priority, but cannot offer proper guidance about these laws to try and help keep people out of felony trouble when the head of the DESPP, with his sizable legal team, apparently cannot decipher the statutes that are supposed to be easily interpreted by ‘the common man’. When the Connecticut General Assembly cannot update the official statutes on their website inside of the 8 months given in the law, and DESPP waits until the last minute to start wavering on their own legal interpretations, what chance do the residents of Connecticut have to figure these laws out either?

“With only a few days until the new laws turn law abiding people into felons, it is outrageous that DESPP would consider a flip-flop [about the October 11th decision of Reuben Bradford], particularly during the hectic Christmas season while so many people are away from home.” said Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta.

“It is not just outrageous, it should be criminal. They are going to be hurting a lot of people by injecting this level of confusion into the process this late in the game. There is no time left to change our education to the public now.” agreed Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess.

Because citizens of Connecticut are protected from their ignorance of the law when their ignorance is due to the interpretations by state agencies like the DESPP (CGS 53a-6), the Commissioner’s interpretation should stand as the applied and practiced law. Connecticut Carry plans to continue to educate and to assist in the defense of people, especially if the State of Connecticut intends to victimize people who have made their choices based on the Commissioner’s official interpretation.

Commissioner Bradford has the sole responsibility and ability to end this confusion. Connecticut Carry calls on Commissioner Bradford to immediately issue a declaration stating unequivocally that he will stand by his original interpretation and that people are safe to follow it.

According to a recent Connecticut Superior Court ruling, the names and addresses of not only permit holders are exempt, but anyone applying for a pistol permit are. Despite arguments to the letter of the law by American News and Information Services, Inc, the FOIC and now Connecticut Superior Court Judge Prescott have decided that the law does not apply as written, but instead a loose interpretation of the law applies. This court decision is being appealed, with Connecticut Carry contributing towards the appeal to try and cement the boundaries of Pistol Permit confidentiality in case law.

Fortunately, most Connecticut Pistol Permit holders, the bread and butter of Connecticut Carry’s membership, will not be upset by this interpretation at all. In fact, Connecticut Carry is announcing a new public campaign aimed at enforcing these decisions to the letter of the interpretation. The wide reaching ramifications of these decisions will impact many municipalities, the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, the state police and gun owners in the state. Connecticut Carry aims to make sure that the confidentiality of permit holders is applied evenly across the state and according to the law as interpreted by the Freedom of Information Commission and the Connecticut Superior Court.

Hearings in front of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners will need to become private affairs where anyone not immediately involved in a case must not be present in the hearing.

CT-N and other media sources will no longer be able to record and disseminate board hearings as they have been doing.

The Connecticut State Police will need to cease and desist in releasing permit information as they have done in the past.

Municipalities will no longer be able to perform ‘suitability investigations’ that include interviewing employers and neighbors like the City of New Haven has been doing for many years now.

Police, both in the municipal and in the state capacity will no longer be able to disclose upon arrest that a person was in possession of a pistol permit at the time of their arrest.

Police, both in the municipal and in the state capacity will no longer be able to disclose permit statuses over public radio communications, like they currently do.

All state agencies will need to redact their releases to make sure that they are not disclosing a permit holder’s name or address information.

Media will need to be sure that they are not an accomplice to the crime of releasing such confidential information and disobeying an FOIC ruling.

As representatives of Connecticut Pistol Permit Holders and the new classes of people that now fall under the same statutory language (‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Large Capacity Magazines’), Connecticut Carry will be ensuring that these laws are enforced without any preference or exemptions for political classes who bear no exemption under the laws. There will be no quarter given to State Police Detectives and other personnel who knowingly violate these interpretations of the law, especially when their only purpose is to further denigrate permit holders. We have recommended Federal criminal charges in the past and we will not hesitate to pursue all legal means to make sure that future crimes by the state are prosecuted.

Any disclosure of a person’s name or address that is a Connecticut Pistol Permit Holder or Applicant is a violation of law right now according to the Connecticut Superior Court. Anyone disclosing this kind of confidential information in the future should expect to be the subject of legal actions on behalf of the citizens of Connecticut.

During a Board of Firearms Permit Examiners meeting on November 14, 2013, Detective Barbara Mattson of the Connecticut State Police disclosed the name and the active permit status of at least one Connecticut State Pistol Permit holder on the public record. This disclosure, prohibited by CGS 29-28(d), is both illegal and irresponsible.

Detective Mattson can hardly feign ignorance to the illegal nature of her disclosure since the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection recently won an appeal to their refusal to disclose permit applicant information under the Freedom of Information Act. The state argued against the plain text of the statute that only exempts persons issued a pistol permit, and the court applied that confidentiality to all applicants as well.

Detective Mattson did not disclose an applicant’s information, nor did she disclose the information of someone in an appeal. She disclosed the permit status, by name of a third party permit holder. This type of disclosure potentially harms or endangers members of the public, and the state police are expected to follow these laws that they enforce on the rest of us.

Rachel M. Baird and Associate of Torrington, Connecticut, on behalf of Connecticut Carry and the Connecticut residents we represent, issued a very direct letter to state officials. The state officials, including the State Police, the Attorney General and the Board of Firearms Permit examiners were informed and warned of this illegal conduct by a senior State Trooper from the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit. They have been asked to provide notice to all relevant agencies and personnel to make sure that they understand that the confidentiality of pistol permit holders must be upheld.

Important questions about these disclosures have also been asked, such as: What action does the state intend to take in response to a prohibited disclosure? When and where will the state deem it expedient to name permit holders in public?

How is the DESPP able to disregard the law for its own members but state in court that the same action is serious and prohibited by law and so serious that applicants for permits cannot be disclosed despite the contrary plain text of the law?

On October 1st, 2013 Hartford Police arrested Michael Patterson and charged him with Breach of Peace, Threatening in the Second Degree and 29 felony counts of Risk of Injury to a Child. Hartford police state the cause for the 29 felony charges is for 29 unloadedfirearms being allegedly left accessible in the home where they claim a child resided with ammunition in some sort of close proximity.

It is questionable why the Hartford Police Department would make an arrest based on the circumstances that they have used to publicly smear Lieutenant Patterson. The Connecticut General Statutes are quite clear on this issue, and the legislature did not change the relevant elements of the ‘safe storage’ statute when they repealed it and substituted new language on 4/4/2013. CGS §29-37i specifically addresses the storage of loaded firearms, not unloaded.

Accordingly, CGS §53a-217a is a criminal statute that addresses violations of the aforementioned ‘safe storage law’ which spells out a class D felony for a child gaining access to an improperly stored firearm that results in injury or death. The reality of this case is far from a violation of either statute, so instead, the Hartford Police Department decided to charge Mr. Patterson with 29 counts of a more serious class C felony. This disparity means that the Hartford Police Department believes that Mr. Patterson committed a crime worth far more than 29 times the punishment of leaving a loaded firearm for a child to access that results in injury or death when there is zero indication that the firearm was ever accessible or accessed by any child, never mind any injury or death being a result.

With the ridiculous charges applied to Mr. Patterson, he faces a potential sentence of 1 to 10 years and up to $10,000 for each charge. This is twice the potential penalty of Criminally Negligent Storage of a Firearm. A child never gained access to his firearms, and yet he could face up to 290 years in prison and up to $290,000 in fines.

Connecticut Carry plans to monitor this case along with the others we are currently working on to make sure that justice prevails and Mr. Patterson is given his fair day in court. A day in court where the Hartford Police Department will have to answer for their overzealous and hysterical prosecution of a law abiding citizen.

A hearing open to the public will take place in the Hartford GA14 courthouse on October 16th at 10:00 am. Connecticut Carry encourages members of the public and the media to attend the hearing. It should be educational and enlightening.

In a letter dated September 10th, 2013, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) admitted to 'mistakes’ in sending threatening letters to citizens that were the subject of Ex Parte restraining orders and unlawfully demanding the surrender of their firearms under the threat of arrest. The letter comes as an apparent response to Attorney Rachel M. Baird’s criminal complaint sent to the FBI against the DESPP for deprivation of civil rights.

While the DESPP assures us that these kinds of threats are to be ‘no longer mailed when an ex parte restraining order is issued’, we still have serious concerns about this and other topics when the DESPP and their legal counsel were unable previously to properly distinguish between an Ex Parte restraining order and a restraining order. The facts of this case as well as others only serve to further emphasize the severe lack of legal understanding within the Connecticut State Police.

Connecticut Carry expects that this lack of understanding is only going to get worse considering the 130+ page gun ban implemented by our legislature as of 4/4/2013. We first publicized the topic of Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection threatening gun owners back on July 1st, 2013.

The lack of understanding of these basic legal constructs as well as the constitutional issues exposed within them was the subject of a letter to the US House of Representatives and Senate after Senators Blumenthal and Murphy signed on to try and change the legislation to cover DESPP’s tracks.

No agency, whether federal, state or municipal should be issuing threats of arrest without a full understanding of the law.

During a closed door meeting in the judge’s chambers during a case Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti exposed his bigotry for fundamental civil rights in front of at least three defense attorneys. The violation came during the case of State of Connecticut v. Bruce Worley, docket number H17B-CR13-0055722S.

Judge Brunetti expressed his contempt for the right to keep and bear arms, as spelled out in both the Second Amendment to the US constitution and Article 1, Section 15 of the Connecticut Constitution by stating in chambers that “No one in this country should have guns” and that he ‘never returns guns’. A judge’s role is to be impartial and to render verdicts, rulings and judgments based upon law and case law, certainly not personal opinion.

The amazing part of Judge Brunetti’s comments is that he is a sitting judge in Connecticut in 2013 after this issue has been so clearly mandated upon him by the Supreme Court of the United States on several occasions including both DC v Heller cases, McDonald v Chicago and others. Judge Brunetti has clearly decided to lead an anti-rights crusade under color of his judicial position and it must end.

Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta was on scene in the courthouse that day and he informed several news outlets including WTIC Fox 61, WTNH ABC 8 and the Hartford Courant who all, to our disappointment, responded that they did not have the personnel to cover such an important topic in such an important context. The citizens of Connecticut have a right to know about Judge Brunetti, who is the second judge that Connecticut Carry has caught and called out for openly advocating against settled civil rights in this state. How many more judges in Connecticut are abusing their authority like this when these judges are so willing to openly flaunt their bigotry?

It is time for Judge Robert C. Brunetti to step down as a Connecticut judge. There is no place in Connecticut for a judge who will so willingly contradict The Supreme Court’s ruling on such an important civil right.